Scientists no longer in it for the science...

Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result. This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker

Seriously, has science died? What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information? What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?

Thoughts?

--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---

Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)

Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.

Conspiracy theory this is not. I personally have the files from "climategate" and they are in fact quite incriminating. Far too detailed to be fake either. Especially considering the events surrounding climategate.
I will say that regardless of global warming pollution and other detrimental emissions should be reduced. I just consider the global warming scare to be nothing but fear mongering and "green" politics gone horribly wrong. We don't need a silly and dubious apocalyptic claim to have reasons for reducing pollution.
Why does it seem that people pigeonhole you into either a raving tree-hugger who foams at the mouth or an oppressive corporate tycoon who dumps radioactive sludge into forests?
I am a global warming skeptic but I definitely support green initiatives just only when they dont subscribe to hysteria and ulterior ideological motives.

there is the effects of rising temperature that affects the melting of the polar ice caps and then there is hysteria. We can see climate patterns changing over time. What we should do about it as a country and as a species is often been politized. I mean, come on if you go to some of the east Asian countries or some parts of the U.S, where pollutants affects the air one breathes, i don't think it would be unresonable to reduce carbon emissions.

If there is no "shiftiness" going on, why did Al Gore - the "leader" of the green movement - cancel his next speaking arrangement with no reason given? There has been plenty of bad science going on for a long time...

And it is not science that is ruined, it is politicized science, green science. The facts were manipulated to get a conclusion that fit a political agenda. That is not science, that is fabrication, manipulation and loathsome. And it has gone on unabated for far too long.

Do your own research, I've study this stuff for 10 years now. There is no basis for man made global warming. We are in a cooling cycle now anyways, genius. Look up the facts (not the fabricated, "consensus" facts, the REAL data)

And the end of the world is coming cause we drive, smoke, and fart too much! The groundhog told me so! (what are you, 9?)

I've read these emails, and there's nothing that remotely suggests that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a hoax. Can you imagine the size of the conspiracy that would have to be? This is would be bigger than the moon landing and Kennedy Assassinations combined if it were really a hoax. As far as I understand them the discussion are simply about how they are running the computer models and trying to find what they should change in their models to reach the current (short term) cooling trend.

Green projects are all about money. Look at who has made money on these initiatives. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and has never been proven to cause climate change. Sure the northern polar ice caps are melting but the southern ones are getting larger. There are more polar bears now than there has ever been. The air over America is cleaner than it has ever been in the last 70 or 80 years. Yet all the screaming lefties are calling for the end of the world. Many of you are to young to remember that these same people were saying we were going to have another ice age in the 70's. If this was a true global problem they would not shy away from a heathy debate. Did you notice that Al Gore cancled his speech in Copenhagan. This is all about money and power, period. Quit taking sides and start looking at the issue objectively. What do your own senses tell you? If all the ice is melting why isn't the sea level rising. This year has been one of the coldest on record and global temps have not risen in ten years. Remember the planet evolves. How many ice ages have there been. England was much warmer just a few hundred years ago. You do know that plants "breath" carbon Dioxide and exhale Oxygen. The planet has its own evolutionary cycle and doesn't care if man is here or not. It didn't care when the dinosaures died and doesn't care if it's changing, man made or not, causes man to die out. Anyone who thinks the people of America and maybe a few other countries, can change the climate by using a wind turbine or a hybred car are just sheep.

Green projects are all about money. Look at who has made money on these initiatives. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and has never been proven to cause climate change. Sure the northern polar ice caps are melting but the southern ones are getting larger. There are more polar bears now than there has ever been. The air over America is cleaner than it has ever been in the last 70 or 80 years. Yet all the screaming lefties are calling for the end of the world. Many of you are to young to remember that these same people were saying we were going to have another ice age in the 70's. If this was a true global problem they would not shy away from a heathy debate. Did you notice that Al Gore cancled his speech in Copenhagan. This is all about money and power, period. Quit taking sides and start looking at the issue objectively. What do your own senses tell you? If all the ice is melting why isn't the sea level rising. This year has been one of the coldest on record and global temps have not risen in ten years. Remember the planet evolves. How many ice ages have there been. England was much warmer just a few hundred years ago. You do know that plants "breath" carbon Dioxide and exhale Oxygen. The planet has its own evolutionary cycle and doesn't care if man is here or not. It didn't care when the dinosaures died and doesn't care if it's changing, man made or not, causes man to die out. Anyone who thinks the people of America and maybe a few other countries, can change the climate by using a wind turbine or a hybred car are just sheep.

Can you find some links supporting your claim about Polar Bears? The England part as well would be nice.

If there is no "shiftiness" going on, why did Al Gore - the "leader" of the green movement - cancel his next speaking arrangement with no reason given? There has been plenty of bad science going on for a long time...

And it is not science that is ruined, it is politicized science, green science. The facts were manipulated to get a conclusion that fit a political agenda. That is not science, that is fabrication, manipulation and loathsome. And it has gone on unabated for far too long.

Do your own research, I've study this stuff for 10 years now. There is no basis for man made global warming. We are in a cooling cycle now anyways, genius. Look up the facts (not the fabricated, "consensus" facts, the REAL data)

And the end of the world is coming cause we drive, smoke, and fart too much! The groundhog told me so! (what are you, 9?)

Do you have a link to a table with the global tempratures for the last hundred years or so? As far as I remember the warmest years ever (since these things were starting to be logged a couple of hundred years ago) recorded has mostly been in the last 10 years.

And the computer models show that we should be getting hotter and hotter, since we are spewing out more and more CO2 every year.

Yet, the temps have gone down for the past decade.

Gee, maybe the sun has more to do with global temps than CO2, since we have been in the deepest solar minimum in a century? But the same 'scientists' that claim we are responsible for the past recent warming discount solar activity altogether - even though solar activity was above average between around 1950 and 1990.

The earth gets its warmth from the sun. As such, solar activity has a direct bearing on our surface temps. The sun was more active for 50 years, and the earth warmed up a bit. It has been very inactive since the last solar max (~2001-2002), and the earth is cooling as a result.

The typical solar minimum lasts 485 days. This one has lasted (so far) for 765 days. 2008 saw 266 days with no observed sunspots (73%). This year, so far, has seen 254 spotless days (76%).

The sun heats up when there are more sunspots, and cools down with fewer sunspots. If the sun radiates more, we get warmer - and visa versa.

If the current trend continues for much longer, we could see the onset of another (mini or otherwise) ice age.

http://www.realclimate.org/ This is a blog that is contributed to by many of the specific climate scientists involved. Also be sure to check the "About" link and "Start Here" link for useful information.

My bottom line is that this is certainly regrettable and evidence of irresponsibility but no smoking gun of malfeasance or wrongdoing. At this point all it amounts to is he said, she said with individual scientists (if they actually are scientists at all) that are known deniers usually with known connections to ExxonMobil through some think tank or other screaming foul with sometimes decent and sometimes rather weak responses from the CRU principles.

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."

I repeat, there is "no scientific body of national or international standing that has maintained a dissenting opinion." Individual scientists of all sorts of different credentials or lack thereof can say anything they want but *no* dissenting "scientific body of national or international standing" is pretty conclusive in my book, at least until this changes.

Right now *nothing* is proven, but I do expect that a thorough review of all of these things will take place and if this causes the scientific consensus to change or to disappear entirely then I will modify my stance accordingly. Until then I will continue to accept the combined opinion of *every* "scientific body of national or international standing."

I'd contribute more to this thread but frankly I'm really tired of the topic.

Do you have a link to a table with the global tempratures for the last hundred years or so?

There are many, and they don't all show the same thing.

I think that is the main point of this thread - that some of the data has been tampered with by some of the 'scientists' to show that global temps have steadily risen, when in fact they have actually gone down in the past decade.

I live in San Diego, and this year has been very cool overall. We had a very mild summer, and things cooled down faster than usual going into winter.

If you have been paying attention during the year, you should have seen many articles on how cool it has been throughout the U.S. (indeed, the entire world) this year.

And yet, I can find other articles that say 2009 is one of the top three hottest years on record.

Whom do I believe? My own senses and numerous reports of cooler weather, or seemingly bogus articles that seem only to push the idea that we are causing hell on earth - especially now that it has been revealed that much of the temperature data has been falsified by some of the most respected 'scientists' in the field?

I'm not even sure that the OP even read the article fully. People need to remember that the people writing these 'incriminating' emails are scientists, not politicians. The use of the word 'trick' is the biggest fallacy here. Trick in a scientific or mathematical context usually means a cunning argument in a proof or theory to account for some problem - in other words, the scientist had found a way to explain how global warming would still produce some cooling patterns. There is no sinister connotation whatsoever.

To give an example, one recent scientific theory has it that we are naturally going into a brief cooling cycle as a result of ocean current patterns, which is masking the effects of global warming (and no this is not pseudo-science, there is evidence for it).

Whatever the scientific data tells us, people have their heads in the clouds if they assume that we can just pump more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with no effects. It's got to go somewhere for goodness sake. Anyway, we're going to run out of oil at some point in the not so distant future (and I'm afraid you can't use any pseudo-science to get round that one), and green technologies are an ideal way to deal with that.

Please don't start accusing the green lobby of scientific malpractices when the sceptics lobby has been guilty of it for years (see British Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Conspiracy, which ended up in court for misrepresenting scientists and falsifying data - exactly what they are now accusing the ARU scientists of).

Out of interest Anglia Ruskin University (the source of the emails) is a minor ex-polytechnic university a couple of miles from Cambridge university.

Man made Global warming was "invented" out of greed plain and simple. Many people including Al Gore stand to make profit by scaring people into believing this non-sense can be averted by buying green credits, paying ‘green’. And yes many scientist have been pressured into supporting this sham I actually know a couple that have been ‘advised’ not to go against this.

Ok, stop judging global warming on whether your location has been cool or hot for the past few years. Think long term people. these scientists who forged the data need to be fired. It is unacceptable, and thus the bad apple syndrome comes out now for all researchers who are suggesting they have evidence of global warming even when they are legit.

I'm fine with you not trusting the findings produced by these scientists, but do not be ignorant of other evidence. I

m sure those against global warming have done the same. All of them? No. This is still a topic the world really needs to be involved with, because the risks of ignoring global warming is too much.

One large side effect that could possible lay out, is that we will observe seasons in which they are cooler then norm, or warmer in norm. I will say it is always possible that for whatever reason it could be cool one year. But is that due to chance or global warming, in order to determine that, we need much more data. The amount of time it would involve to collect this amount of data has passed, and we need to make inferences on what little data we have. 50 years is not a long time to judge these things, but we can detect sharp influcations of the climate. What is the cause? Well that is an on going investigation. Or just keep believing that the world is going to end like everyone else in the last 2000 years.

Our brains are wired to believing 3 or so years is a long time, but in perspective of how the climate and world works, we are but a molecule in the sand.

I 'm not even sure that the OP even read the article fully. People need to remember that the people writing these 'incriminating' emails are scientists, not politicians. The use of the word 'trick' is the biggest fallacy here. Trick in a scientific or mathematical context usually means a cunning argument in a proof or theory to account for some problem - in other words, the scientist had found a way to explain how global warming would still produce some cooling patterns. There is no sinister connotation whatsoever.

Absolutely, but as far as the dumb American public goes, this is par for the course. I had this exact situation happen to me before. I sent out an email meant for INTERNAL use, discussing the quality of a white paper we were considering for inclusion into something. Someone betrayed me and that email got circulated outside the organization and eventually all the way back to the author. It was COMPLETELY out of context once it's read by people not in my immediate group. The person who did the betraying had corporate interests in mind: he was just trying to get one company's white paper included instead of another. That would be like tape recording everything Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul said about A.I. contestants behind closed doors and airing it on FOX. How fair and effective would the selection process be if they had a gag on their OWN honest communication with each other? Because that's where we're at.

If there is no "shiftiness" going on, why did Al Gore - the "leader" of the green movement - cancel his next speaking arrangement with no reason given? There has been plenty of bad science going on for a long time...

And it is not science that is ruined, it is politicized science, green science. The facts were manipulated to get a conclusion that fit a political agenda. That is not science, that is fabrication, manipulation and loathsome. And it has gone on unabated for far too long.

Do your own research, I've study this stuff for 10 years now. There is no basis for man made global warming. We are in a cooling cycle now anyways, genius. Look up the facts (not the fabricated, "consensus" facts, the REAL data)

And the end of the world is coming cause we drive, smoke, and fart too much! The groundhog told me so! (what are you, 9?)

Agreed also I would like to point out that the Sun is a major factor in the global changes we are seeing. Can't very well tax the sun or make it buy carbon credits now can we. Although I would not be opposed to sending Al Gore to the sun to have a one on one chat.